The Referendum Thread

[bluto]

Hmm, so now the anti Scottish sound bites start............

The Sea Lord sees Scotland as a Foreign country, the Portsmouth shipbuilders see the aherm Scotch workers as quite happy. No doubt the London Evening Standard will have disdain and horror at the Northern savages hacking out canoes for their Navy as frankly not acceptable.

Oh and lets not forget all those BAE Scottish directors , nuff said mate

Well it didn't take too long

Oh ffsake..................are we maybe really just as well to vote for the thing through to dis associate ourselves once and for all from those arrogant Southern types.

Typical Teuchter tripe, me ole son...

[Stuart Dickson]

And again the question is posed - this is exactly the same situation when most of us leave home and start living on our own. The risks are huge, most of us struggle and chances are it will take a short while before things settle down but that doesn't stop most of us taking the plunge anyway.

Why?

Because freedom and personal responsibility bring huge gains.

When leaving home "freedom" doesn't usually come in the form of having the street you move into set all your household rules for you, and your Mum and Dad controlling whether or not you can borrow and determining what interest rate you can borrow at.

[Stuart Dickson]

I wonder if there will be big "rally's" à la Reichsparteitag?

They tried it in Edinburgh a few months back but the turn out was so embarrassingly low they've had to lie about the figures that attended it ever since. I wouldn't be too surprised though if we saw a torchlight procession at some point.

[bluto]

Here's another poll.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-47-support-union-poll-1-3177800

[saintnextlifetime]

Here's another poll.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-47-support-union-poll-1-3177800

Very good . .

. .of course , The Scotsman newspaper has always been a device of the Conservative and Unionist party ,yeh. .

[Lex]

In your poorly educated opinion of course.

How do you know how educated my opinion is? What part of it do you disagree with, and why?

And again the question is posed - this is exactly the same situation when most of us leave home and start living on our own. The risks are huge, most of us struggle and chances are it will take a short while before things settle down but that doesn't stop most of us taking the plunge anyway.

Why?

Because freedom and personal responsibility bring huge gains.

Are we seriously comparing the ending of a glorious centuries old union to kids moving out their house?

You make the odd erudite point on here, and i sometimes think you have a vague idea of what you're talking about. Then you go and make frankly bizarre posts like this one and you're back to credibility square one.

If we retain our currency in that of Sterling why should we lose representation regarding quantitative easing etc? If we retain the currency we should continue to have a proportional representation in decision making?

Over representation in politics perhaps, but I suppose the debate then comes down to which respective tear you find redundant.

Voting on issues that affect other parts of the UK by Scottish MPs that have no impact on Scotland should stop, I agree. However, there then becomes an issue about appropriate representation for Scotland, Wales and NI on non-devolved issues that you describe. So reducing the number of Scottish, Welsh or NI MPs perhaps is not the way to go but there should be a bar on voting on issues that have no relevance to respective nations.

I said we have control of a number of issues highlighting the fact that we have the necessary abilities for self governance already, but made no reference to their proportion in general.

Putting my cards firmly on the table I think your next point is something that is not negotiable. I am a Scot and for me, albeit I completely respect and understand those of differing opinions as it ultimately comes down to a personal opinion of identity, self determination over international policy is of paramount importance. Without debating the individual aspects of the UK's recent foreign policy, this aspect is key to how the rest of the world perceives your country and it's people. I want Scotland, potentially idealistically, to set an example of a forward thinking all inclusive modern society acutely aware of its position in the world taking responsibility for its own actions. This may be of little or no importance to others but when interacting with people from around the world first impressions count, and a nation's foreign policy has a major impact on that. Having the ability to influence that nationally is therefore important to me and whilst I don't disagree that the transition period will bring significant change it is worth it on the above point alone.

What influence does Scotland have at the top table of the UN or NATO in the context of a predominately Labour/SNP voting public being represented by a ConDem government?

As to the economic impact for individual communities, yes there will undoubtedly be change but there will then be a local influence on finance which when you factor out massive spending in other areas irrelevant to the majority of Scotland could more than likely provide the offset. Ultimately though it is up to the Yes Campaign to delineate this and reassure individual communities that a Yes vote doesn't mean the death of their community. Unless these answers are provided in these areas then it will be No as you say.

Therefore there is a lot to gain in my opinion but I don't disagree that this will take time and potentially it won't suit everyone. That's the point of this being a democratic process though.

Regarding currency. Should we? Why? If we vote we will be disbanding our 50 odd MP's in Westminster, surrendering Scottish representation in the parliament in which these decisions are made.

What we going to do after that? Go cap in hand to England and ask them if they mind if we can have a say on how they run their currency? Panama uses the USD. I can just imagine the Panamian president calling up Barak Obama and asking him to take into account Panamian interests when making fiscal policy decisions. They'd get laughed out of court, and so would we.

If we somehow managed to negotiate some kind of representation on currency decisions - which i don't think we'd be able to - what would be the point in being independent? Why not just have devo max and retain our disproportionately large influence in Westminster?

Regarding Scottish MP's voting on English issues, why you think that should stop? If i was English it'd anger me, but as a proud Scot i'm quite glad that not only do we control our own domestic affairs, but we are also represented in English domestic affairs. I think its quite funny and use it to wind up my English friends. We have a great deal here. Why give it up? Like i said earlier, if i was English and they were having a vote on whether to leave the union and become an independent nation, i'd vote yes without a shadow of a doubt.

Of course there's regional variations in all unions. Texas voted for a republican president but they got a democratic one. That's what a union is. The south of England voted Tory between 97 and 2010, but got Labour. Paisley voted Labour for the Scottish Parliamentary elections, but we got an SNP administration. Suck it up, that's democracy.

We are too small to have any kind of impact on global issues on our own. Do you know what Irelands stance on the recent wars were? No, me neither, because their armed forces are so small they are insignificant. There's no doubt there's been some questionable moral decisions regarding warfare made by the UK government in recent decades. Not being part of any future questionable moral decisions is probably the yes campaigns best selling point, but it's all they've really got, and it's not enough.

At the moment we are represented as part of the UK as one of only 5 permanent members of the UN security council, something we'd surrender if we voted yes. George Robertson from Ellon was recently the secretary general of NATO, essentially the top man in the biggest military alliance in the world, would he have got the job if Scotland was independent? Doubtful. For such a small nation are represented at the top tables of the biggest international organisations. Why give this and all the other perks up? So we have control of whether our relatively tiny armed forces go join in with the rest in other wars or not?

Very good . .

. .of course , The Scotsman newspaper has always been a device of the Conservative and Unionist party ,yeh. .

So polls only count if they show the Yes vote catching up, if they don't they're wrong, and the bookies who are offering 9/2 for yes and 1/7 for no are all wrong.

Am i doing it right?

[Bart Simpson]

Regarding currency. Should we? Why? If we vote we will be disbanding our 50 odd MP's in Westminster, surrendering Scottish representation in the parliament in which these decisions are made.

What we going to do after that? Go cap in hand to England and ask them if they mind if we can have a say on how they run their currency? Panama uses the USD. I can just imagine the Panamian president calling up Barak Obama and asking him to take into account Panamian interests when making fiscal policy decisions. They'd get laughed out of court, and so would we.

If we somehow managed to negotiate some kind of representation on currency decisions - which i don't think we'd be able to - what would be the point in being independent? Why not just have devo max and retain our disproportionately large influence in Westminster?

Regarding Scottish MP's voting on English issues, why you think that should stop? If i was English it'd anger me, but as a proud Scot i'm quite glad that not only do we control our own domestic affairs, but we are also represented in English domestic affairs. I think its quite funny and use it to wind up my English friends. We have a great deal here. Why give it up? Like i said earlier, if i was English and they were having a vote on whether to leave the union and become an independent nation, i'd vote yes without a shadow of a doubt.

Of course there's regional variations in all unions. Texas voted for a republican president but they got a democratic one. That's what a union is. The south of England voted Tory between 97 and 2010, but got Labour. Paisley voted Labour for the Scottish Parliamentary elections, but we got an SNP administration. Suck it up, that's democracy.

We are too small to have any kind of impact on global issues on our own. Do you know what Irelands stance on the recent wars were? No, me neither, because their armed forces are so small they are insignificant. There's no doubt there's been some questionable moral decisions regarding warfare made by the UK government in recent decades. Not being part of any future questionable moral decisions is probably the yes campaigns best selling point, but it's all they've really got, and it's not enough.

At the moment we are represented as part of the UK as one of only 5 permanent members of the UN security council, something we'd surrender if we voted yes. George Robertson from Ellon was recently the secretary general of NATO, essentially the top man in the biggest military alliance in the world, would he have got the job if Scotland was independent? Doubtful. For such a small nation are represented at the top tables of the biggest international organisations. Why give this and all the other perks up? So we have control of whether our relatively tiny armed forces go join in with the rest in other wars or not?

My understanding was that the financial decisions re: quantitative easing/interest rates etc...were made by the Bank of England and not Parliament. Therefore if I'm wrong I apologise. But if so as part of a currency union proportional representation albeit small should be retained.

I would quite happily have Devo Max, but ultimately as I've said I want full control over our nation's affairs. I entirely accept your point about a political union, but when it has essentially life and death decisions relating to foreign policy and war I would prefer to be represented by a wee and insignificant nation who knows it's place in the world rather than acting as part of a fallen super-power with delusions of former grandeur without any say. That may be a very opinionated view but that is the impression I get from the UK's want to retain global influence. At times this has potentially been for the greater good but as you say at times it has been questionable. Again whilst idealistic acting within the UN with a global mandate would be the way I would like to proceed whilst conceding that I'm entirely sure that none of the questionable decisions has been made for anything other than the perceived greater good.

On George Robertson's influence, whilst a Scot does he not represent the British Government's interests within NATO? I'm not sure if he was anti-nuclear bombs etc in his youth like other Labour politicians, but does the job not come with him being a representative of the Government rather than exercising his own thoughts on policy?

On your last point, a wholehearted yes from me. I appreciate I may be being idealistic but essentially the government represents me as a citizen or subject as the case may be. Therefore when it decides to go to war, regardless of whether I voted for them or not as a nation we all go to war. I would far rather never go to war or do so only when the UN has a mandate to do so as part of a unilateral global approach as war is inherently wrong.

So for me it is an important issue. I appreciate it isn't necessarily as important or if it is in the opposite direction for yourself, but I'm not a politician nor am I trying to change your point of view. I'm merely debating our respective opinions and explaining why I hold my own.

ETA: changes to typos x many due to typing on phone...

Edited November 7, 2013 by Bart Simpson

[saintnextlifetime]

So polls only count if they show the Yes vote catching up, if they don't they're wrong, and the bookies who are offering 9/2 for yes and 1/7 for no are all wrong.

Am i doing it right?

Where did l say the poll was wrong , as opinion polls go l would imagine that it may be accurate , I , was merely pointing out the political affiliation of said newspaper . As far as bookmakers are concerned , l don't give a flying f**k but l would reckon that now would be a good time to get yer bet on as those odds will no doubt narrow closer to the time. Suck it up , as you would say. .

Edited due to language , grammar and spelling. .

Edited November 7, 2013 by saintnextlifetime

[oaksoft]

I thought it simplistic when you first used it, but now your poor analogy has stretched beyond breaking point.

When you leave home it's with the blessing (usually) of your parents. They want you to get on in life and they want you out from under their feet.

More importantly, they will be there to assist, sustain and subsidise you through the inevitable tough times. And they'll take you back home, if the baw goes on the slates...

Freedom and personal responsibility are NOT guaranteed to bring huge gains.

Nobody is saying there aren't risks and as you say, there were risks when you left home.

Didn't stop you doing it though did it?

You seem to be obsessed with talking about short term problems of which there are certain to be some with both independence and leaving home.

I'm more interested in longer term benefits which is what this vote should be about.

Very few people end up back living with their parents in the longer term and the vast majority are better off for having their independence as proven with every generation on average being better off than their parents. This has been the case for countless generations.

As for the blessing of the parents - not sure why that's relevant. Are you suggesting that if your parents had opposed you, you'd have stayed at home for ever?

If the vote is YES, I only hope the UK is gracious in defeat and let's us go with her blessing.

Anyone else think this is unlikely?

Edited November 7, 2013 by oaksoft

[saintnextlifetime]

The markets know that ze Germans won't let the Euro fail, and they know that they have the means of stopping it failing. What you're essentially left with is German austerity policies being imposed directly on the citizens of Greece, and indirectly on the citizens of other Eurozone states. Mitterand, the French president who essentially came up with the idea of a single currency did it to prevent the German economy dominating Europe. It's had the opposite effect.

Sterling is absolutely the right route for an independent Scotland, it's the least bad of the available three and will be the only viable option for at least a generation. That means a generation of surrendering representation on crucial fiscal matters such as interest rates and levels of quantitive easing.

I think you answer your own question there. In Scotland we essentially have the best of both worlds. We, as a people, are among the most represented people on the planet. We all have an MP, an MEP, a MSP and a councillor for every other housing scheme.

We have our own legal, school, university and health systems, while retaining representation on English and Welsh domestic policy. We have Scottish MP's in Westminster voting on English education and law policies which have absolutely no impact on the Scottish people. If i was English i'd want independence from Scotland, we are ridiculously over represented in Westminster aswell as having our own parliament, something the English people don't

You say we already have almost total control over our domestic matters, and you ask why not have complete autonomy. I think that question should be flipped on its head. We already have all this control, why have complete autonomy? We will lose all our representation in Westminster, we will lose our representation at the top tables of UN and NATO. What will we gain? The only major policy matter we don't have direct control over in the devolved parliament is foreign affairs. Is this what we are willing to give up all the positives that come out of being in the union for?

Of course a relatively tiny country like ours will only be able to afford an armed forces similar in size to Ireland. This will mean the full or partial closures of places like Faslane and Lossiemouth and will result in hundreds if not thousands of Scottish armed forces employees losing their jobs as we will not be able to afford them. If you ever visit towns around these bases you'll see just how dependent these towns economies are on military personnel.

It seems like we have alot to lose by voting yes, and not alot to gain. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that all relevant polls have a no vote cruising to a comprehensive victory. Regarding the date of the referendum, as i said earlier it has came too soon for Salmond, but he's been a victim of his own parties success. He wanted it in the early 2020's because he knows he can't win before then. However his party won a majority - something which he could never have foreseen - and he's been forced to have it now.

I don't think most Scots would be bothered about losing the "big seats" at NATO and the UN , as , unlike our counterparts dan saff , we no longer consider ourselves a super power, despite having hideous WMD's parked on our doorstep. The British government still think they are Billy big Bawz when it comes to defence but quite frankly they are not . However , the Scottish Government has plans to increase the size of our army http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/snp-uk-split-would-mean-more-scots-armed-forces.20424925 . As far as closures are concerned , the British government has been downsizing the military based in Scotland for decades and with the closure of RAF Leuchars , imminent , a base that has been there since 1916. As 10% of the population , we are entitled to 10% of the RAF and the RN , to be honest , l don't think we would need any more than that to protect our home waters rather than having to patrol areas that have he-haw to do with us. .

As far quantitative easing is concerned , that is a matter decided by the Bank of England rather than the elected government ; that is right , a non-elected member of an international banking cartel decides these things. .

You say that if you were English you would want independence from Scotland . If you were English , I would give you independence too.

Edited by Tom for language. .

Edited November 7, 2013 by saintnextlifetime

[saintnextlifetime]

Nobody is saying there aren't risks and as you say, there were risks when you left home.

Didn't stop you doing it though did it?

You seem to be obsessed with talking about short term problems of which there are certain to be some with both independence and leaving home.

I'm more interested in longer term benefits which is what this vote should be about.

Very few people end up back living with their parents in the longer term and the vast majority are better off for having their independence as proven with every generation on average being better off than their parents. This has been the case for countless generations.

As for the blessing of the parents - not sure why that's relevant. Are you suggesting that if your parents had opposed you, you'd have stayed at home for ever?

If the vote is YES, I only hope the UK is gracious in defeat and let's us go with her blessing.

Anyone else think this is unlikely?

Dunno. .

England , has never given up any of her colonial possessions , without a fight . Hopefully , it would be with their blessing , per a Yes vote but l dunno. .

[bluto]

Dunno. .

England , has never given up any of her colonial possessions , without a fight . Hopefully , it would be with their blessing , per a Yes vote but l dunno. .

England didn't have colonial possessions, Britain did. We did, we Scots shared in the empire.

The colonies have gone, in the main. Scotland has never been a colony.

It depresses me when Scots think like that.

If the vote is Yes, then it will certainly be business as usual in England, and I'd be sure that there will be no energy or monies wasted on smoothing the process.

Like a divorce, I can't see one of the partners going an extra mile to make life easy for the other who wanted to ruin a beautiful partnership.

[saintnextlifetime]

England didn't have colonial possessions, Britain did. We did, we Scots shared in the empire.

The colonies have gone, in the main. Scotland has never been a colony.

It depresses me when Scots think like that.

If the vote is Yes, then it will certainly be business as usual in England, and I'd be sure that there will be no energy or monies wasted on smoothing the process.

Like a divorce, I can't see one of the partners going an extra mile to make life easy for the other who wanted to ruin a beautiful partnership.

Mark Renton referred to Scotland as a colony. .

" It's SHITE being Scottish! We're the lowest of the low. The scum of the f**king Earth! The most wretched, miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some hate the English. I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, are COLONIZED by wankers. Can't even find a decent culture to be colonized BY. We're ruled by effete assholes. It's a SHITE state of affairs to be in, Tommy, and ALL the fresh air in the world won't make any f**king difference!"

[smcc]

England didn't have colonial possessions, Britain did. We did, we Scots shared in the empire.

The colonies have gone, in the main. Scotland has never been a colony.

It depresses me when Scots think like that.

If the vote is Yes, then it will certainly be business as usual in England, and I'd be sure that there will be no energy or monies wasted on smoothing the process.

Like a divorce, I can't see one of the partners going an extra mile to make life easy for the other who wanted to ruin a beautiful partnership.

I think it highly unlikely that beautiful parnerships end in divorce. If Scots decide to go down the independence route it will be because the partnership is not working.

[smcc]

England didn't have colonial possessions, Britain did. We did, we Scots shared in the empire.

The colonies have gone, in the main. Scotland has never been a colony.

It depresses me when Scots think like that.

If the vote is Yes, then it will certainly be business as usual in England, and I'd be sure that there will be no energy or monies wasted on smoothing the process.

Like a divorce, I can't see one of the partners going an extra mile to make life easy for the other who wanted to ruin a beautiful partnership.

I think it highly unlikely that beautiful parnerships end in divorce. If Scots decide to go down the independence route it will be because the partnership is not working.

[saintnextlifetime]

I think it highly unlikely that beautiful parnerships end in divorce. If Scots decide to go down the independence route it will be because the partnership is not working.

Reported for double posting. .

[bluto]

Mark Renton referred to Scotland as a colony. .

" It's SHITE being Scottish! We're the lowest of the low. The scum of the f**king Earth! The most wretched, miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some hate the English. I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, are COLONIZED by wankers. Can't even find a decent culture to be colonized BY. We're ruled by effete assholes. It's a SHITE state of affairs to be in, Tommy, and ALL the fresh air in the world won't make any f**king difference!"

John Hodge was deploying historical irony and inexactitude in the dialogue, in order to better and more realistically portray a Scots character with limited appreciation of the situation's reality.

Plus...

A "culture to be colonised by" makes for nice alliteration.

Fwiw, Scots are equally the colonisers (sounds like a rectal allusion... ) of England.

I speak from experience.

Edited November 8, 2013 by bluto

[bluto]

Reported for double posting.

And it was no more credible in stereo.

Partnerships may commence in beauty or, indeed, may burgeon into beauty after a rocky start.

Age and familiarity can wither the beauty on the bough.

Beauty is transitory. For a partnership to work, both partners must invest energy and love. I think we still share that.

I honestly do.

Edited November 8, 2013 by bluto

[Seaside Nipper]

Might be mentioned elsewhere ...............I see GMB Scotland have confirmed they are to campaign against Independance....................... However it seems they are all for this devo max proposal ??

Dunno what the latest stats are but at present it seems ( depends on what spin is spun I suppose ) that the yes campaign are well shy of their required majority.

Plenty of rabbits outa hats etc etc to follow , but it looks like the YES team are taking quite a bit of incoming just now.

Anyway, nearly time furra weekend swalley , who's like us eh , weh hay

[Stuart Dickson]

Might be mentioned elsewhere ...............I see GMB Scotland have confirmed they are to campaign against Independance....................... However it seems they are all for this devo max proposal ??

Dunno what the latest stats are but at present it seems ( depends on what spin is spun I suppose ) that the yes campaign are well shy of their required majority.

Plenty of rabbits outa hats etc etc to follow , but it looks like the YES team are taking quite a bit of incoming just now.

Anyway, nearly time furra weekend swalley , who's like us eh , weh hay

18 points behind in the latest opinion polls apparently. Who'd have thought that at this stage it looks more likely that Hearts will catch St Mirren and stay up this sesaon, than it does that Scotland will vote for Independence.

[oaksoft]

Deary me there's an awful lot of people on here happy to shoot their load prematurely over this.

A year to go.

[salmonbuddie]

John Hodge was deploying historical irony and inexactitude in the dialogue, in order to better and more realistically portray a Scots character with limited appreciation of the situation's reality.

Plus...

A "culture to be colonised by" makes for nice alliteration.

Fwiw, Scots are equally the colonisers (sounds like a rectal allusion... ) of England.

I speak from experience.

But it was funny....

[bluto]

But it was funny....

Aye, it was.

[saintnextlifetime]

The GMB. . .eh?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/gmb-backed-a-no-vote-then-asked-members-for-their-views-questions-over-unio.22654702

[Stuart Dickson]

The GMB. . .eh?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/gmb-backed-a-no-vote-then-asked-members-for-their-views-questions-over-unio.22654702

I'm no lover of the unions. They've always been undemocratic when they can get away with it, but if the members who want independence feel strongly enough about it there is an easy solution. Cancel your membership

Edited November 11, 2013 by Stuart Dickson